the sphere project evaluation report n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Sphere Project: Evaluation Report PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Sphere Project: Evaluation Report

The Sphere Project: Evaluation Report

446 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The Sphere Project: Evaluation Report

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Sphere Project:Evaluation Report Presented by: Ronald Waldman, M.D. Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University

  2. “[M]ore attention to needs and capacities assessments, contingency planning, preparedness measures, and adoption of the most cost–effective interventions by UN agencies, NGOs and donor governments, including military contingents providing humanitarian assistance, would have resulted in better allocation of relief resources and, more importantly, could have saved even more human lives. One problem regarding such concepts as contingency planning and preparedness measures is lack of consistent working definitions among agencies.” (Eriksson J et al, Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda, 1996:49)

  3. Evaluation Team Members Ronald Waldman Lynn Atuyambe Marci Van Dyke Karen Marcovici Fred Wabwire-Mangen Yvette Gonzalez Gakenia Wamuyu Maina Sara Jacoby

  4. Other Bodies • Sphere Project Management • Sphere Management Committee • Evaluation Advisory Committee

  5. Methods • Literature review • In-depth interviews • Questionnaire • Case study – Tanzania • Case study – Angola

  6. Literature Review • 279 entries • 110 “Critical” • 169 “Related” • Published and ‘gray’

  7. In-depth Interviews • 84 interviews • Held in Washington DC, New York City, Paris, Geneva, London, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, and Brussels and phone • Targeted: INGO and LNGO representatives, Donors, Sphere Management Committee members, Sphere pilot agencies, UN agencies, Government representatives, Sphere founders, academics

  8. Questionnaire 581 Returned 422 (72.6%) completed on-line 66 (11.4%) administered in person 59 (10.2%) as an e-mail attachment 35 ( 6.0%) by post Questionnaire

  9. Questionnaire Received from more than 90 countries and almost 200 humanitarian agencies 516 (88.8%) English-language responses 47 ( 8.1%) Spanish 18 ( 3.1%) French Questionnaire

  10. Country Currently Working in see handout Questionnaire

  11. Agency Currently Working for see handout Questionnaire

  12. Sex Male 366 (63.0%) Female 208 (35.8%) Missing 7 (1.2%) Questionnaire

  13. Age Questionnaire

  14. Staff • International 289 (49.7%) • Local 185 (31.8%) • Difficult to classify 107 (18.5%) • “Are you a native of the country you are working in?” If country receives humanitarian aid, classification was as “local”. Questionnaire

  15. Years worked in humanitarian assistance Questionnaire

  16. Respondents’ Place of Work • Headquarters 133 (30.7%) • Regional Office 58 (13.4%) • Country head office 149 (34.3%) • Field/project site 122 (28.1%) Questionnaire

  17. How well do you understand the Sphere Project? Questionnaire

  18. Case Study -- Tanzania Focus Group Discussions • 15 in total (6 Congolese, 9 Burundian) • In each location 3 FGDs held simultaneously • Women • Men • Camp Leaders

  19. Case Study -- Tanzania Key Informant Interviews • Interviews held with • INGOs • LNGOs • Donors • Refugee camp officials • Government agencies • Followed interview guidelines • Notes taken at the time of the interview • Notes reviewed and typed each day

  20. Case study -- Angola • Methodology • Key informant interviews Interviews held with • INGOs • LNGOs • Donors • Refugee camp officials • Government agencies Due to Visa issues Dr. Maina and Mr. Atuyambe were unable to assist with this case study. As a result, the focus group discussions were abandoned for this second case study

  21. “Has Sphere changed the quality of humanitarian assistance? Yes, it has contributed to an overall improvement. In a qualitative way. And the things that have improved are: the discourse, the thought, and the process of the delivery of services. And Sphere has been part of the landscape in which that improvement has taken place.” Interview

  22. Limitations of the Evaluation • Providers, not recipients • Representativeness • Quality of data • Attribution • Bias

  23. Conclusion 1 The Sphere Project has been one of the most important and most successful initiatives in the field of humanitarian assistance. There is a widespread perception among donors, NGOs, and other members of the humanitarian community that the quality of the discourse surrounding humanitarian assistance and the quality of humanitarian assistance programs has improved in recent years and that this improvement is due, in part, to the Sphere Project.

  24. Sphere Project Handbook Sales (Oxfam Publication)

  25. “…the Sphere Project initiative is representative of one of the big policy shifts in the international humanitarian system in the last decade.” Buchanan Smith. ODI’s Bridging Research & Policy Project: Humanitarian Case Study: The Policy Initiative to Launch the Sphere Project. Literature Review

  26. Has Sphere changed the way you design programs? Questionnaire

  27. Conclusion 2 Not all parts of the Sphere Project have been equally successful: While most of the designers of the Sphere Project and others closest to it feel that the Humanitarian Charter is its most important component, most of those involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, from donor agencies to local staff, are more interested in to the technical parts of the Handbook. Consideration should be given to re-asserting the centrality of the Charter to the Project.

  28. In your words, describe the Sphere Project and its purpose 403 responses 57/403 (14.1%) mention “rights”, “droits”, “derechos” Questionnaire

  29. “The understanding of rights in Sphere is embryonic. We’re in Year One of rights development in humanitarianism.” Interview

  30. Conclusion 3 The Sphere Project is considered to be more useful in refugee camp settings and in tropical areas. The standards, and especially the key indicators, are not felt by many to be universally applicable. Guidance as to how to achieve the standards, rather than the indicators themselves, may be more important to field workers.

  31. Conclusion 4 There is widespread confusion regarding the terminology used in the Sphere Handbook. The terms “standards” and “indicators” are very frequently interchanged and misused.

  32. Conclusion 5 The Sphere Project key indicators are difficult to attain in many settings for a number of reasons, among which a lack of adequate funding is among the most important. The relationship between NGOs and donors in regard to their use of the Sphere Project needs to be further defined.

  33. Conclusion 6 The standards and key indicators are sometimes seen as setting the bar too high, especially when local populations live in conditions that do not meet Sphere Project standards.

  34. Conclusion 7 The trainings offered by the Sphere Project are quite successful in imparting the spirit, the philosophy, and the key messages of the Sphere Project. But they do not reach enough of the people engaged in providing humanitarian assistance. Other means should be found to orient both new and experienced personnel.

  35. Conclusion 8 The concepts that underlie the Sphere Project are not well-known throughout the humanitarian community. Field workers, especially local staff, have far less knowledge regarding the Sphere Project than headquarters staff and international field staff. In other words, implementation of the Sphere Project tends, at least in some places, to be characterized by a “top-down” approach.

  36. Knowledge of Sphere by current working base Questionnaire

  37. Conclusion 9 The Sphere Project is selective in regard to the topics that it presents.

  38. Conclusion 10 We feel that some attention should be called to an issue that we do not feel is in the hands of the Sphere Project to address. The standards and indicators are being used not only as “minimum standards for disaster response”, as they are clearly intended, but also as standards for at least the early stages of the transition from relief to development, for which they are less clearly drawn.